A Guiding Framework

I've been doing a little bit of self-reflection lately, reflecting specifically on how I attack while I work in the athletic setting. Doing this has made me realize a few things. That 1) It's not easy to look at yourself from another person's viewpoint and 2) Sometimes this process is a good way to keep you in check.

Out of all of this, what I've come up with is a guiding framework of how I do what I do. Some may do things differently, while others might take a similar approach. But what matters most is that this framework is what works for me...at least for now.

Starting with a technical model

• Particularly in skill-based sports, it's always important to analyze before I attack. I think it's also important to first keep my mouth shut and let the sensory (the input) do it's job before the motor (the output).  Doing so generally minimizes the possibility of preconceived biases from clouding my judgement or plan of action. Often I'll have a technical model (to borrow from track) rolling in the back of my head that I think needs to be achieved and although athletes vary morphologically, this silhouette - if you will - let's me know how close or far off we are from the end goal. It also acts as a blueprint for the necessary interventions so that I don't over do it.

Sticking with basic principles

• With the amount of information (and fluff) floating around these days, it can be quite easy to get carried away with the fancy stuff. And in my opinion, I really don't think there is any need to be fancy. Sure unconventional interventions may be warranted, but so long as they're necessary, they don't fall under "fancy". In my mind, this is the art of what we do and the basic principles will guide you there. Ask any Yoda and they'll tell you that basic principles win all the time.

Thinking motor learning

• More often than not, the deviation from the intended technical model is secondary to an error in performance. And if performance of a task is the goal, then performance should be the goal. Now the term "performance" can hold various meanings but if you think about it, it's dynamic and it's active, rather than static. And with this comes control which is preceded by learning. So in most interventions, I try to think motor learning because it needs to stick. I have no problem with doing manual therapy in fact I think it's often necessary, but by thinking "motor learning", very rarely do I end with manual therapy alone. Unless it's planned restoration of course.

Knowing regressions and progressions

• Thinking on the fly is a skill that often puts rookies in awe but to me it's all about regressions and progressions. By keeping the intended technical model and basic principles in mind, and understanding the individual's presentation in front of us, understanding regressions and progressions truly shouldn't be too difficult.

​Not being a slave to my methods

• By adhering to all that was stated above, I think it would be quite difficult for one to be a slave to their methods. If we put the individual in front of us first and us second, then there should absolutely no way that our judgement will be clouded by personal biases in methods. Only when the dynamic thought process is halted will slavery prevail.

Hope this helps. If not, here's another example by Patrick Ward and a complementary one by Mike Reinold.